Abstract
Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are public spaces where local authorities engage citizens to develop innovative urban services. Their strength and popularity stem from a methodology based on open innovation, experimentation, and citizen engagement. Although the ULL methodology is supposed to largely adopt a co-production approach, connections between the two have not yet been thoroughly investigated. The paper seeks to fill this gap by examining through a qualitative analysis three experiences of ULLs made in Amsterdam, Boston and Turin. Specifically, the paper aims to assess whether ULLs can be really conceptualised as a form of co-production and, if so, which elements characterised them as innovative in comparison to ‘mainstreaming’ co-production; Then it analyses benefits and drawbacks related to their implementation.
Highlights
The concept of co-production can be broadly defined as the involvement of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens in public service delivery (Verschuere, Brandsen, & Pestoff, 2012, p. 1086)
Urban Living Labs (ULLs) represent a good example of methodology based on co-production and aimed at coping with policy challenges occurring at the local level (Bason, 2013; Bason et al, 2013; Boyle & Harris, 2009; Christiansen & Bunt, 2012; Coenen, van der Graaf, & Walravens, 2014; Eskelinen, Robles García, Lindy, Marsh, & Muente-Kunigami, 2015; Kulkki, 2014)
For the purposes of the present article, I will rely on the framework proposed by Nabatchi et al to examine three experiences of ULLs in order to identify actors involved in the co-productive activity, the phases of the service cycle across which co-production is applied, the level at which it occurs, and main benefits generated by collaboration both for professionals and citizens
Summary
The concept of co-production can be broadly defined as the involvement of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens in public service delivery (Verschuere, Brandsen, & Pestoff, 2012, p. 1086). NESTI the growing complexity and wicked nature of issues tackled by public authorities (Bason, Mygind, & Sabroe, 2013; Christiansen & Bunt, 2012) Within this debate, Urban Living Labs (ULLs) represent a good example of methodology based on co-production and aimed at coping with policy challenges occurring at the local level (Bason, 2013; Bason et al, 2013; Boyle & Harris, 2009; Christiansen & Bunt, 2012; Coenen, van der Graaf, & Walravens, 2014; Eskelinen, Robles García, Lindy, Marsh, & Muente-Kunigami, 2015; Kulkki, 2014). Conclusions summarise main findings and suggest directions for future research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
